Delhi District Court
Smt. Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar vs Sachin Sharma ( Rsano. 133/18) Decided ... on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH SACHIN JAIN, ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE - 02, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, DELHI
RCA DJ ADJ No.122/19
CNR No.DLSW010118792019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar
W/o Shri Vijay Shankar Bhatnagar,
RZD-5/5, Gali No.5, Second Floor,
Vaishist Partk, Pankha Road, New Delhi-110046
... Appellant / Defendant
v.
Shri Manjeet Singh@ pappu
S/o late Shri Jaswant Singh,
R/o RZD-5/17, Gali No.5, Ground Floor,
Vaishist Park, Pankha Road, opp. Janak Cinema
New Delhi-110046 ... Respondent / Plaintiff
Date of filing of appeal: 14.10.2019
Date of judgment reserved: 21.07.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 30.07.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/ Defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") for setting aside the judgment and decree passed under Order 12 rule 6 of CPC, 1908 on 02.05.2019 (hereinafter "impugned judgment") by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "trial RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 1/23 Court") in civil suit titled as Manjeet Singh @ Pappu v. Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar CSSCJ No.45/2018 (hereinafter "suit"),
2. For the sake of convenience and clarification the parties are also referred to and by their status, position before the trial Court.
3. Briefly, stated the Ld. Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of possession of property bearing no. RZD-5/17. Gali no.5, Ground Floor, Vaishist Park (Village Dabri), New Delhi (hereinafter the "Suit Property") on the basis of admission of the defendant in the written statement.
4. The facts relevant for the just decision of the present appeal as per the pleadings of the plaintiff are that his late father had given the suit property on rent to the defendant in the year 2008 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- and the same was increased from time to time and the last paid rent was Rs.3000/-. The father of the plaintiff had expired on 08.12.2013 and thereafter, all rights devolved upon the plaintiff being his Son. The defendant is very irregular in payment of rent and has not paid the rent since December, 2013 and therefore, the tenancy was terminated vide termination notice dated 18.12.2017.
5. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant had earlier preferred a Suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff for restraining him for dispossessing the defendant from the suit property, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2015 directing the plaintiff not to dispossess the defendant herein without due process of law from the suit property. Further, the defendant also filed a petition under section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Court of Sh. Prashant Sharma, ACJ, Delhi, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 2/23 31.08.2015 and thereafter, the defendant also preferred a petition under section 27 of the DRC, Act for deposit of rent which was disposed of vide order dated 21.09.2015 by the Court of Sh. Prashant Sharma, ARC,Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for the relief of possession, arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/- alongwith 15% interest for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017 ( of last three years from the date of suit), damages of Rs.10,000/- and Mesne profits @ Rs. 500/- per day alongwith pendent-lite and future interest till handing over of the possession.
7. In written statement, the defendant took the preliminary objections to the effect that the suit is without cause of action, suit is barred by DRC, Act as the rent as per the averments in the plaint is below 3500/- per month and the provisions of DRC, Act have been extended to village Dabri apart from the objections of affixation of deficient ad-voleram Court Fee.
8. In parawise reply, the defendant simply denied all the averments of the plaint except the specific denial to the extent that the plaintiff is not the son of the Jaswant Singh from whom the defendant took the suit property on rent and therefore, the plaintiff is not her landlord and it is clarified by the defendant that the Suit for permanent injunction and petition under section 45 and 37 of the DRC, Act was filed against the present plaintiff as the plaintiff was repeatedly visiting the suit property claiming himself to be the son of deceased landlord namely Jaswant Singh and threatening to evict the defendant from the suit property and under such fraudulent representation only, the defendant has no RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 3/23 option to file the suit and in the present suit plaintiff has no basis to claim that he is son of the Sh. Jaswant Singh.
9. On the basis of the contentions of the defendant, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 12 rule 6 of CPC, 1908 with prayer for judgment against the defendant on the ground that the defendant admitted that she was inducted as tenant in the suit property by Late Sh. Jaswant Singh and the defendant for the first time in the Written statement have taken the plea that the plaintiff is not the son of late. Jaswant Singh and have not taken the said plea earlier either in suit for permanent injunction or petition under section 45 or 27 of the DRC, Act. Defendant also not denied the rate of rent of Rs.3000/- and the only defence taken by the defendant is that the provisions of the DRC, Act are applicable to the suit premises since the rate of rent is less than Rs.35,00/- per month, but the said plea is not maintainable as the even though the area of village Dabri is urbanised under section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Act in October, 1994 but the provisions of DRC, Act has not been extended to the village Dabri. To support the said contention, the plaintiff relied upon the Judgment titled as Rajesh Verma vs. Sachin Sharma ( RSAno. 133/18) decided by the Hon`ble High Court of Delhi and Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi, 85 (2000) DLT 658 and prayed for the reliefs as claimed in the plaint.
10. In reply to the application for judgment on admission, the defendant filed his reply and as far as the amount of rent is concerned reiterated that the rent was never Rs.3000/- per month but only Rs.12,00/- per month, which is being deposited before RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 4/23 the Court of Rent Controller and as far as the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased landlord is concerned the same was again disputed by the defendant and it was the plea of the defendant that during his lifetime neither the landlord Late Jaswant Singh told her that the plaintiff is his son nor the plaintiff annexed any proof that he is the son of the deceased landlord and even the plaintiff has not annexed any title document of the suit property and the defendant reiterated the stand taken in the written statement that the plaintiff was impleaded in the earlier cases as he was threatening to disposes the defendant.
11. As far the applicability of the DRC, Act to the present case the defendant took twin pleas i.e. (1) The plaintiff never objected to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller when the defendant preferred petition under section 27 of the DRC, Act, for deposit of monthly rent and (2) the Suit property falls under Vashist Park which falls under the PS Sagarpur and not Village Dabri and prayed for dismissal of the application on the ground that there is no undisputed and unambiguous admission on the part of the defendant as enshrined under Order 12 rule 6 of the CPC, 1908.
12. On the basis of the above averments and after discussing the rival contentions of the parties, the Ld. Trial Court, vide its reasoned judgment under challenge, had partly allowed the application of the plaintiff only for the relief of possession.
13. In nutshell, the Ld. Trial Court decreed the suit for possession of the plaintiff on the following grounds:; A. The defendant despite specific pleadings of the plaintiff in para 10 regarding non-extension of DRC, Act to village RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 5/23 Dabri, the defendant has evasively stated that DRC, Act applies to the village Dabri.
B. Defendant failed to support her plea that DRC, Act applies to village Dabri despite two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon by the plaintiff in his support.
C. As far as the plea taken by the defendant that the plaintiff is not son of Late. Jaswant Singh from whom she had taken the property on rent as admitted in the written statement, the defendant herself admitted that she had filed a suit for permanent injunction and petitions u/s 47 & 27 of the DRC, Act against the plaintiff claiming him to be the son of the deceased landlord. Further, the defendant failed to disclose as to who else is the landlord of the suit property after the death of Jaswant Singh.
D. The plea that the suit property is not situated in the revnue village of Dabri and in fact the same is within the jurisdiction of PS. Sagarpur has been for the first time taken by the defendant in her reply to application under Order 12 rule 6 of CPC, 1908 and further the plea that the Vashisht park comes under the jurisdiction of assembly constituency Dwarka was taken in the application U/O 7 rule 11 CPC, 1908.
E. Therefore, the defendant cannot be allowed to retract from her admissions in para 3 of the preliminary objections and para 8 of her reply on merits in the written statement by way of bald assertions in her reply to the application under Order 12 rule 6 of CPC that the suit property does not fall RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 6/23 within village Dabri and in fact by taking the plea that suit property does not fall within village Dabri, the defendant has impliedly admitted that in fact the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable to Village Dabri.
F. As per Judgment relied upon by the plaintiff titled as Rajesh Verma vs. Sachin Sharma ( RSAno. 133/18) decided by the Hon`ble High Court of Delhi, wherein the suit property was also situated in Vashisth park, Pankha Road, New Delhi, the Hon`ble Court after examination of entire material on record has come to the conclusion in para 27 of the judgment that DRC Act, 1958 as amended, does not apply to the suit property situated within the area of village Dabri. Thus in absence of any notification issued by the Government being placed on record subsequent to the Judgment of the Hon`ble Court, there are no reasons to take a different view in respect of the suit property in question which is situated in the same area.
G. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the suit property falls under the jurisdiction of PS Sagarpur and thus the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 50 of the DRC Act, 19858, even then the plea of the defendant is not sustainable as much as in Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi, 85 (2000) DLT 658 the Hon`ble Supreme Court while dealing with the property situated in Sagarpur, has come to the conclusion that the provisions of the DRC Act, 1958 have not been extended to village Sagarpur.
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 7/23H. As far as the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of Rent controller by giving a statement in petition u/s 27 of the DRC, Act filed by the defendant is concerned, the orders were passed by the Ld. ARC with specific observations that the petition is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent therein i.e. the plaintiff in the present suit and it is well settled legal position that there can be no estoppel against the statute and the parties by their consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court which otherwise has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of particular proceedings. Thus, the plea of the defendant is liable to be rejected out rightly.
I. As there is no admission on the part of the defendant qua the claim of rent as averred by the plaintiff, thus the suit is partly decreed for relief of possession only.
14. In the present appeal it is the case of the appellant and argued in tandem with by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the suit property situated at Vashisth Park, Pankha Road does not fall under the revenue estate of village Dabri but under the PS Sagarpur and the postal code of Sagarpur is 110046 which is also the postal code of Village Nangal Raya and the Village Nangal Raya stands notified in view of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 vide notification bearing no. S.O. 1236 dated 25.03.1979 and by the said notification the provisions of DRC, Act, 1958 stands extended to RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 8/23 the localities mentioned in the schedule to the notification of Delhi no. F. 9(2)/66-Law.Corp. Dated 28.05.1966 and village Nangal Raya is one of the localities mentioned in the Schedule appended with notification dated 28.05.1966 and thus, as per the provisions of Section 50 of the DRC, Act, 1958, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and therefore, the impugned Judgment is passed without jurisdiction.
15. The Ld. Counsel further argued that even though the appellant/ defendant herself filed suit for permanent injunction and petitions under section 45 and 27 of the DRC Act, against the respondent/plaintiff , however, in the present suit once the defendant in her written statement denied that the plaintiff is not the son of the deceased landlord form whom she had taken the suit property on rent, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that he is the son of the deceased landlord but the ld. Trial Court merely by considering the pleading of previous litigation as admission on the part of the defendant decreed the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff/respondent whereas the plaintiff/respondent neither annexed any identity proof to establish his relationship with the deceased landlord nor annexed any title document in respect of the suit property to show that the suit property belongs to his deceased father. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed for either setting aside the impugned judgment or remand back the case to the Ld. Trial Court for adjudication after taking evidence of the respective parties.
16. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant to buttress his arguments has relied upon the following citations: IN Re: Pandam Tea Co Ltd. 1972 Tax. L.R. 1923, Maun Kyi Oh and Anr. Ma Thet RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 9/23 Pon 1926 Lawsuit (PC) 56,Chander Kishore Sharma and Anr. V. Smt. Kampa Wati (AIR 1984 Delhi 14) and Niwas Builders v. Chanchalaben Gandhi 2002 Lawsuit (Bom) 967.
17. Per Contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, supported the judgment passed by the ld. Trial Court and argued that once the appellant/defendant herself filed the suit for permanent injunction and initiated proceedings under the DRC Act, 1958 against the respondent/plaintiff by claiming him to be the son of the deceased landlord now she cannot resile from the said statement and deny in the present suit that the plaintiff is not the son of the deceased landlord. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel that similarly the plea of the appellant/defendant that the suit property does not fall under the revenue estate of village Dabri and the same falls under the Nangal raya is not sustainable as the said plea was never taken by the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court and the same is taken by her for the first time in appeal. In the written statement she herself admitted that the suit property comes under village Dabri and her only defence was that DRC Act is applicable to village Dabri, however, she miserable failed to prove before the Ld. Trial Court that DRC Act is applicable to village Dabri whereas the plaintiff has successfully proved that the provisions of the DRC Act are not applicable to the village Dabri by relying upon the Judgments of Rajesh Verma(Supra) and Mitter Sen ( Supra) and prays for the dismissal of the present appeal with exemplary costs.
18. I have heard the rival contention of both the parties and have gone through the appeal file, Trial Court record.
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 10/2319. Before appreciating the grounds of appeal and the arguments address by the respective counsel for the parties, it is apposite to reproduce the provisions of Order 12 rule 6 CPC. 1908 which provides as follows:
Judgment on admissions.
(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment is pronounced.
20. Further, Rule 3, 4 and 5 of Order VIII CPC, 1908 provides that the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth and when a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so eva- sively but answer the point of substance. Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure specially provides that if an allegation of fact in the plaint is not denied specifically or by necessary impli- cation or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defen- dant, then it shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant.
21. Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 are reproduced hereunder for better understanding:-
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 11/23Rule 3: Denial to be Specific-
It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defen- dant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. Rule 4: Evasive Denial-
Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allega- tion is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. Rule 5: Specific Denial-
(1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability.
Provided that the Court may in it discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission."
22. Further as far as the interpretation of word "otherwise" used in Order 12 rule 6 CPC. 1908 is concerned which is relevant for the just decision of the present case, the following judgments shall be helpful viz:
(i) In the case of Rajiv Srivastava v. Sanjiv Tuli and Anr., reported as 119 (2005) DLT 202 (DB). It was observed as RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 12/23 below :
"Para 10. The use of the expression 'otherwise' in the aforesaid context came to be interpreted by the Court. Considering the expression the Court had interpreted the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also de hors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties' statement is recorded under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matter in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein............."
(ii) In another case No. : RFA (OS) No. 1/2005 titled as Mr. Prem Narain Misra Vs. Faire Brothers Export and Import Ltd. decided on July 12 2007, it was observed by our own Hon'ble High Court in para 17 :
"The very objective and purpose of enacting the provision like Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable the Court o pronounce the judgments on admission when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get a RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 13/23 decree. Such a provision is enacted to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. The admissions can be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiff. The admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case".
(iii) Further in 168 (2010) Delhi Law Times 501 titled as Karam Kapahi & Ors. Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr., it was observed by our own Hon'ble High Court in paras 48 to 51:
48. "In the 54 Law Commission Report, an amendment was suggested to enable the Court to give a judgment not only on the application of a party but on its own motion. It is thus clear that the amendment was brought about to further the ends of justice and give these provisions a wider sweep by empowering Judges to use it 'ex debito justiciae a, a Latin term, meaning a debt of justice. In our opinion the thrust of the amendment is that in an appropriate case, a party, on the admission of the other party, can press for judgment, as a matter of legal right. However, the Court always retains its discretion in the matter of pronouncing judgment."RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 14/23
49. "If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is compared with Order 12 Rule 6, it becomes clear that the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 is wider inasmuch as the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is limited to admission by 'pleading or otherwise in writing' but in Order 12 Rule 6 the expression 'or otherwise' is much wider in view of the words used therein namely: 'admission of fact.......either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing."
50. "Keeping the width of this provision in mind this Court held that under this rule admissions can be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case [See Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt.) and Another,118 (2005) DLT 396 (SC)=III (2005) SLT 131=(2005) 11 SCC
23. Coming to the present case, there is no iota of doubt that the defendant has not denied the tenancy of the suit property as it is the specific stand of the defendant that she has taken the suit property on rent from late Jaswant Singh in the year 2008. Fur- ther, in the written statement she has also not denied that the suit property is not situated at village Dabri. But later on in the reply to the application under Order 12 rule 6, CPC, preferred by the plaintiff, the defendant has taken the simple plea that the suit property does not fall under village Dabri and in the application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC, 1908, filed by the defendant, it is claimed that suit property falls under PS Sagarpur and as per no- tification bearing no. 549-553 issued by Govt. of NCT, Delhi, Vashisth Park comes under the assembly area of Dwarka and not RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 15/23 village Dabri and therefore, the plaintiff in order to take undue advantage has wrongly mentioned that the property falls under the village Dwarka.
24. In nutshell, the defendant has taken two defenses in the written statement, firstly, that the plaintiff is not the son of the de- ceased landlord and the defendant even gave clarification for fil- ing earlier suit for permanent injunction and proceedings under section 45 and 27 of the DRC Act, 1958, by stating that as the plaintiff used to visit the suit property many times and claimed himself to the son of the deceased landlord and threatened to evict her in the capacity of her landlord, under such fraudulent repre- sentation she had no option but to file the suit for permanent in- junction and proceedings under section 45 and 27 of the DRC Act and Secondly, that the provisions of Delhi Rent Act, 1958 are applicable to the suit property and as the rent of the suit premises is less that Rs. 35,00/- and the suit property is situated in an area where the provisions of the DRC, Act are applicable and there- fore, as per the mandate of Section 50 of the DRC Act, the juris- diction of the Civil Court is barred.
25. As far as the first defence is concerned, that the defendant was forced to file previous suit and initiate proceedings under DRC Act against the plaintiff by stating him to be the son of the deceased landlord is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same is not sustainable, as it is not explained by the ld. Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments that what stopped the defendant to raise the same plea that the plaintiff is not the son of the deceased landlord in her Suit for permanent in- junction or proceedings initiated under the DRC Act, 1958against RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 16/23 the respondent/plaintiff herein. On perusal of the contents of the Suit for permanent injunction, which is annexed by the defendant (appellant herein) herself with her written statement, in para nos. 1 to 5, she specifically pleaded in para no.2 that "father of the defendant died on 08.12.2013, thereafter the defendant (plain- tiff herein) started collecting the rent from the plaintiff ( de- fendant herein)". Even in para.4 it is specifically pleaded in line 3 that "That the defendant after the demise of his father used to collect the rent from the plaintiff but has not issued any rent receipt despite repeated requests and demands from the plaintiff". Even in para.5, it is specifically pleaded "that the plaintiff has made the payment of rent to the defendant upto Feburary, 2015".
26. The above pleadings clearly established that it is never dis- puted by the defendant herein, that the plaintiff is not the son of the deceased landlord and in fact it is claimed by the defendant that even rent is paid to him after the demised of the landlord Sh. Jaswant Singh. It is settled law that a party cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate at the same time. The Hon`ble Apex Court in the Judgment titled as Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh And Ors (1967 AIR 341) has held that:
Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes no distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other admissions. An admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive and it is open RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 17/23 to the party to show that it is not true.
27. In the case before the Ld. Trial Court, the defendant has neither produced any document to rebut that the plaintiff is not the son of the deceased landlord nor divulged the details as to who is the real LRs of the deceased landlord. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also made an argument that it is the plaintiff who has to prove by leading affirmative evidence that he is the son of the deceased landlord however, this Court is of the view that in light of the judgment of Basant Singh (supra), once the defen- dant has herself pleaded that the plaintiff as son of the deceased landlord in her suit for permanent injunction as well as the pro- ceedings initiated under the DRC Act, 1958 and even claimed to have paid rent to him after the demise of landlord, which amounts an admission on her part, the onus shifts upon her to prove that the said admission was not true.
28. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the im- pugned judgment as far as the first defence raised by the appellant is concerned.
29. Now, coming to the second defence that provisions of DRC Act, 1958 are applicable to the suit property as the rent is less than Rs. 3500/- and the provisions of the DRC Act are appli- cable to the area where the suit property is situated .
30. As per the mandate of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, twin conditions are required to be satisfied and they must co-ex- ist, only then it can be said that a particular property comes under the preview of DRC Act, 1958 and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, the said two conditions are:
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 18/23A. As per Section 1 (2) of the DRC Act, The property must be situated in an area as is specified in the first Schedule appended with the Act, at the time of commencement of the Act and per proviso appended with sub section (2), the Central Govt. by notification in official Gazette extended this act to any other urban area included within the Munici- pal Corporation of Delhi.
And B. As per Section 3 (c) of the Act, Monthly Rent of the prop- erty whether residential or not shall not exceed Rs. 3500/-.
31. As far as the second condition is concerned, there is no dis- pute between the parties that the rent of the suit property is less than Rs. 3500/- , the only dispute is with regard to the applicabil- ity of first condition to the suit property.
32. First of all, regarding applicability of the provisions of DRC Act, 1958, the issue is no more res-integra and it is ob- served by our Hon`ble High Court in Rajesh Sharma ( supra) and by Hon`ble Supreme Court in Mitter Sen ( supra), that the provisions of DRC, Act, 1958, ipso facto will not become appli- cable on mere inclusion of a particular area within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi as per the mandate of Section 507 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, unless there is another notification issued by the Central Govt. as per the mandate of proviso appended to Sub section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
33. In light of the legal preposition reproduced above, coming to the present case, the defendant has taken three different stands in respect of the area in which the suit property is situated.
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 19/23A. Firstly, in her application Under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, 1908 filed on 05.01.2018, it is claimed by the defendant that the suit property is not situated within the local limits of Village Dabri since Vashist park comes under the Sagar Pur Poice Station and moreover as per notification no. 549- 553 issued by GNCTD, Vashist park comes under assem- bly area of Dwarka and not village Dabri.
B. Secondly, in her written statement filed on 15.03.2018, the defendant has not specifically denied that the suit property does not fall in village Dabri as claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint which as per rule 3 read with rule 5 of Order 8 of CPC, 1908 shall be deemed to be an admission . Moreover, in para no.11 of the written statement, which the Ld. Trial Court might have failed to take into notice due to oversight, the defendant expressly admitted in following words "
That, the contents of para-13 are accepted to an extent that the suit property is situated Dabri".
C. Thirdly, the plea is taken for the first time in the present ap- peal that the pin-code of Sagarpur is 110046 and even the pin-code of village Nangal Raya is same and as the provi- sions of DRC Act, 1958 have been made applicable to Vill. Nangal Raya by the Central Govt. vide its notification dated 25.03.1979 bearing no. SO 1236, therefore, the juris- diction of the Civil Court is barred.
34. As far as the first two pleas taken by the appellant/defen- dant is concerned, the Ld. Trial Court after considering both the pleas of the defendant and by relying upon the judgments of RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 20/23 Rajesh Verma and Mitter Sen (Supra) , has rightly observed that the defendant has miserably failed to prove that Central Govt. by notification extended the provisions of DRC Act, 1958 either to village Dabri or Sagarpur which falls under the assembly con- stituency of Dwarka.
35. In addition to the reason given by the ld. Trial Court, this Court is of the view that even as per the information received by the appellant/defendant under RTI, which is annexed as Annexure 'C' by the appellant/defendant herself, it is specifically mentioned that till date only two notifications have been issued by the Cen- tral Government, one in 1979 and another in 1986 and perusal of the said notifications neither the village Dabri nor village Sagarpur falling under the assembly constituency of Dwarka has been notified and included within the preview of DRC Act, 1958.
36. As far as the third plea taken by the appellant as repro- duced above, firstly, the plea was never taken by the defendant before the Ld. Trial Court and the same is taken for the first time in present appeal and thus, same cannot be adjudicated upon as it is settled law that if the plea is not taken in the pleadings by the party before the Trial Court, such plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the party for the first time in the appeal. Further, this Court is of the view that the appellant came with this plea only because the village Nangal Raya is found mentioned in the notifi- cation no. SO 1236 dated 25.01.1979 in the RTI information re- ceived by the appellant/defendant.
37. However, for the sake of burying all the claims raised by the appellant, this court deems appropriate to decide the con- tentions raised by the defendant/appellant in the present appeal RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 21/23 for the first time that the suit property falls under the Village Nangal Raya .
38. In order to substantiate her claim that the suit property comes under village Nangal Raya, has relied upon the addresses mentioned in the Aadhar card of the respondent/plaintiff as well as her own Aadhar Card and submitted that on both the Aadhar Cards village Nangal Raya is mentioned. Even the rent tendered by the defendant to the plaintiff through money order shows the postal code 110046 of village Nangal Raya.
39. Both the pleas of the appellant are not sustainable as there can be one postal code for one or more than one area. This Court made efforts itself in order to do complete justice and have checked online about the areas that fall under the Postal Code 110046 and as per the information available on official website of Indian Post office i.e. indiapost.gov.in, the postal code 110046 is common for both Sagarpur and Nangal Raya and out of which the sub-post office at Nangal Raya is the delivery office whereas of Sagarpur is non-delivery sub-post office and this is the only rea- son that on Aadhar Cards of the parties as well as on the money order,the name of the delivery sub-post office Nangal Raya is mentioned and therefore, merely because the postal code of Nan- gal Raya and Sagarpur being the same does not mean the suit property comes under the revenue estate of Village Nangal Raya.
40. Further, as per the information of Villages available on the website of GNTCD i.e. delhi.gov.in ( Home>organization>List of Villages), Village Sagarpur and Nangal Raya have been shown as different villages and both of them comes under the sub-division Delhi Cantt. of District South-West. Therefore, be-
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 22/23ing both villages are having different revenue estates, it cannot be assumed and presumed as the appellant wants this Court to do that suit property falls under revenue estate of Village Nangal Raya merely because of same postal code.
41. None of the judgments relied upon by the appellant are ap- plicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are distinguishable and thus, need not to be dwelt upon.
42. In light of the above discussions and observations, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 02.05.2019, passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC, South-West District, Dwarka, Delhi is upheld and confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.
43. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
44. The Ahalmad is directed to return the trial Court record (TCR) along with the certified copy of the judgment and decree, as per Order XLI, Rule 37, CPC and applicable Rules.
45. File be consigned to record room only after due compliance and necessary action, as per Rules. Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN JAIN Date:
JAIN 2022.07.30
15:13:47 +0530
Pronounced in the open Court (Sachin Jain)
on July 30, 2022 Addl. District Judge-02
South West District
Dwarka Courts Complex, Delhi
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19
Page No. 23/23